|
My daughter, now 15 yo, has loved The Giver for about 3 years now (and I do too).
I think the reason The Giver speaks to her is that it is about a child who is orders of
magnitude different from others and sees things that others don't. (I believe that at
some level, this is true of ALL children. Each child is unique and has a unique way of seeing his
or her surroundings.)
One of the points of The Giver is that it may be possible to lead an utterly eventless life in
perfect harmony with everyone else in your community. However, in order to do so, you must make
certain sacrifices.
At the heart of The Giver is the question of how much freedom/tolerance/diversity are people
willing to give up so that life can "go on as usual".
The reason that Lowry, the author, gradually exposes us to the unpleasantnesses of that
society (children progress all at the same time through an obviously rigid curriculum, people
don't get to choose their own future careers, children with differences are not permitted to
survive, emotions are damped down by drugs) is to point out that the great wonders of the
society she describes (no hunger, no cold, everyone belongs and has a place and serves society
and is included in group activities) are balanced out by disadvantages. (In the context of our
current geopolitical situation, I think all thoughtful children and adults ought to be thinking about these
kinds of issues. How MUCH information should the press suppress because it would reflect disunity
in the United States about how this war should be pursued? Etc.)
In this, I think The Giver is a very different kind of book than Roald Dahl's, in which
the child protagonist is abused so badly for 89% of the book that (Dahl apparently feels) readers
root for the children when they throw off their oppression and wreak bloody revenge. In Dahl's books
there is NO advantage to the children who might choose to stay with the evil abusers. Dahl's books do
not pose moral dilemmas or challenge readers to think deeply about their values. Instead, Dahl
writes revenge fantasies.
This is totally NOT the case in The Giver. Lowry works hard to explain how members of the
society she describes do derive real benefits from their sacrifices. Of course, then Lowry does make
it obvious (to us, anyway) why (she thinks) the benefits are not worth the cost.
For certain children, and despite graphic violence and challenging content, The Giver is a
Must Read book.
I also have
strong opinions about the worth of fairy tales, despite the fact that they are "politically
incorrect".
Here's a less science-fiction-y, but just as intense, story
about a child who learns of the existence of evil, and its workings, in the world.
Thanks for listening. Happy reading.
--Emily
The Giver
|